To be honest, I feel like it is not a valid argument to say that J-Hope was cultural appropriating when the style was not, in fact, an African American cultural styling.
Here is why:
Cultural Appropriation has its definition in it's name: the appropriation of culture. This definition Clearly defines what its issue is and what falls within this category.
Something belonging to a specific minority culture (varies depending on which country you are speaking about) that has been ridiculed by the majority , and then used by that same majority as a status symbol and dominance symbol , making the wearer aqcuire positive attributes (cool, stylish, intellectual,etc.) when they are a part of the majority, but still being ridiculed when worn by the originators of that cultural symbol.
Now there is debate enough about cultural appropriation itself, and I definitely have my thoughts on the subject, but as you'll see in a minute, its almost completely irrelevant to what the problem is with this J-Hope scandal, so I very intentionally will not be elaborating further on the debate of cultural appropriation, and my stance.
J-Hope's scandal does not fit into this definition of cultural appropriation as he did not take a cultural aspect (artifact/philosophy/style/etc) and use it to obtain positive reception, while original possessors where being mocked for it.
J-Hope sectioned his hair and jelled it. This is not a protective hairstyle belonging to any specific culture. It's definitely a hairstyle thats been done before, but it stems from fashion grounds not racial and cultural ones.
The Reason why J-Hope has been attached to the Cultural Appropriation issue in this circumstance when he does not fall under the definition of cultural appropriation is because, concern has been raised that he is trying to achieve the same effect that cultural appropriators look to achieve, through wearing a style that is not culturally influenced, but resembles dreads, a style that is.
The issue with this though is that this measurement is completely subjective.
3 strand ‘standard' braids have been deemed okay by the black western community for use by all races, those are a type of braid that have been deemed neutral...but those are braids and they still look similar to other braids.
Though I personally, am able to see the difference, that criteria of 'looking similar' is a vague one with no clear boundary. What makes an object resemble another one has no set standard and is completely a subjective judgment.
It does not stand to have subjective boundaries, as every idol will always be at fault for any and every action, with no set definition to compare against.
If the hairstyle he wore was not the protective hairstyle African Americans wear, then it simply wasn't the hairstyle.
It almost sounds like they are saying that J-Hope can only where straight or slightly wavy hair since that is the only natural type of South Korean hair for the most part.
I mean that's what a large percentage of hairstyle are for; to add variation. If you bar everything because of a certain history to a certain type of people, even when it only resembles that hairstyle and is not actually the hairstyle in question, then you can in essence bar people from doing anything unnatural to their hair.
In this case, there is nothing solid in terms of definition or cause, and to tie it to the same cause as an issue with legitimate stances not only diminishes the validity of the actual issues but draws in a grey area where the question has to be raised about styling hair in general.
In South Korea early idols were not allowed to have bleached hair, S.E.S had such a revolutionary concept when they bleached their hair. It may seem unrelated but without the strict definitions set in place for the main issue of dreads, tying the same philosophy to a non-cemented issue forces us to raise questions about many area's including any alteration to hair, See how unsturdy this topic is?
Should Idols be allowed to dye their hair in ways like J-hope did early in the video, that article writers even stated resembles 90's American boy band artists? Since dyed hair is inauthentic to traditional Korean standard he is neglecting his own history and fitting himself into a different culture in a way that as seen as cool and trendy.
Is this whats barred in the cultural appropriation movement? No. You can clearly see in this example even, the "flaws" that contradict itself in this argument if you were to try and make it an argument for him culturally appropriating, but with the blank space left by this subjective judgment issue being brought up now, this is a nice and relevant issue which may not fit in its original intended category but certainly finds its niche here because there aren't enough boundaries to establish what the issue may actually be.
If you wanna find an Issue with J-Hope's hair, By all means go ahead. Im not telling you to like or respect J-hope
But No matter what you do, make sure your argument is actually accurate. There are different sides to the cultural appropriation debate, you can choose any side and be cprrect, but you can't conflate unrelated undefined points with the issue of cultural appropriation and still make a solid argument, without leaving room for the breakdown of many things which should not be involved.
Here is why:
Cultural Appropriation has its definition in it's name: the appropriation of culture. This definition Clearly defines what its issue is and what falls within this category.
Something belonging to a specific minority culture (varies depending on which country you are speaking about) that has been ridiculed by the majority , and then used by that same majority as a status symbol and dominance symbol , making the wearer aqcuire positive attributes (cool, stylish, intellectual,etc.) when they are a part of the majority, but still being ridiculed when worn by the originators of that cultural symbol.
Now there is debate enough about cultural appropriation itself, and I definitely have my thoughts on the subject, but as you'll see in a minute, its almost completely irrelevant to what the problem is with this J-Hope scandal, so I very intentionally will not be elaborating further on the debate of cultural appropriation, and my stance.
J-Hope's scandal does not fit into this definition of cultural appropriation as he did not take a cultural aspect (artifact/philosophy/style/etc) and use it to obtain positive reception, while original possessors where being mocked for it.
J-Hope sectioned his hair and jelled it. This is not a protective hairstyle belonging to any specific culture. It's definitely a hairstyle thats been done before, but it stems from fashion grounds not racial and cultural ones.
The Reason why J-Hope has been attached to the Cultural Appropriation issue in this circumstance when he does not fall under the definition of cultural appropriation is because, concern has been raised that he is trying to achieve the same effect that cultural appropriators look to achieve, through wearing a style that is not culturally influenced, but resembles dreads, a style that is.
The issue with this though is that this measurement is completely subjective.
3 strand ‘standard' braids have been deemed okay by the black western community for use by all races, those are a type of braid that have been deemed neutral...but those are braids and they still look similar to other braids.
Though I personally, am able to see the difference, that criteria of 'looking similar' is a vague one with no clear boundary. What makes an object resemble another one has no set standard and is completely a subjective judgment.
It does not stand to have subjective boundaries, as every idol will always be at fault for any and every action, with no set definition to compare against.
If the hairstyle he wore was not the protective hairstyle African Americans wear, then it simply wasn't the hairstyle.
It almost sounds like they are saying that J-Hope can only where straight or slightly wavy hair since that is the only natural type of South Korean hair for the most part.
I mean that's what a large percentage of hairstyle are for; to add variation. If you bar everything because of a certain history to a certain type of people, even when it only resembles that hairstyle and is not actually the hairstyle in question, then you can in essence bar people from doing anything unnatural to their hair.
In this case, there is nothing solid in terms of definition or cause, and to tie it to the same cause as an issue with legitimate stances not only diminishes the validity of the actual issues but draws in a grey area where the question has to be raised about styling hair in general.
In South Korea early idols were not allowed to have bleached hair, S.E.S had such a revolutionary concept when they bleached their hair. It may seem unrelated but without the strict definitions set in place for the main issue of dreads, tying the same philosophy to a non-cemented issue forces us to raise questions about many area's including any alteration to hair, See how unsturdy this topic is?
Should Idols be allowed to dye their hair in ways like J-hope did early in the video, that article writers even stated resembles 90's American boy band artists? Since dyed hair is inauthentic to traditional Korean standard he is neglecting his own history and fitting himself into a different culture in a way that as seen as cool and trendy.
Is this whats barred in the cultural appropriation movement? No. You can clearly see in this example even, the "flaws" that contradict itself in this argument if you were to try and make it an argument for him culturally appropriating, but with the blank space left by this subjective judgment issue being brought up now, this is a nice and relevant issue which may not fit in its original intended category but certainly finds its niche here because there aren't enough boundaries to establish what the issue may actually be.
If you wanna find an Issue with J-Hope's hair, By all means go ahead. Im not telling you to like or respect J-hope
But No matter what you do, make sure your argument is actually accurate. There are different sides to the cultural appropriation debate, you can choose any side and be cprrect, but you can't conflate unrelated undefined points with the issue of cultural appropriation and still make a solid argument, without leaving room for the breakdown of many things which should not be involved.
